Forestry professionals’ knowledge of and attitudes towards the practice of continuous cover forestry (CCF) Lucie Vítková University College Dublin, School of Agriculture & Food Science, Forestry Department, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland Irish forests Photo: Dr Brian Tobin Why focusing on attitudes? • CCF represents an unfamiliar and novel approach to forest management • Implementation of new management is influenced by: – Attitudes – Knowledge – Values • Attitudes of forestry professionals -> Limited Methods • On-line survey – – – – General information on CCF Statements framed in the context of issues regarding CCF Demographic questions Additional comments • Participants – – – – – Coillte Teo. Teagasc Forest Service Association of Irish Forestry Consultants Other forest management companies in Ireland Use of CCF • 32% actively use CCF – forest managers • 24% do not use CCF – forest managers • 34% do not use CCF – forestry consultants/advisors • 10% did not mention Understanding of CCF – all participants • 98% familiar with continuous cover forestry • Silvicultural systems associated with CCF – – – – Shelterwood systems (26%) Selection systems (22%) Not mentioned (27%) natural regeneration, thinning, long-term retention, low impact silviculture, etc. CCF users (32% respondents) • Reasons for CCF use: – – – – Economic benefit Broadleaved species Amenity and recreation Certification • Extent of CCF use - limited – Area managed under CCF <10% – CCF applied for <10 years CCF non-users (24% respondents) • Over 1/3 not planning to use CCF in the future ‘... not convinced of CCF, especially with regards to economics...’ ‘... CCF is not a conventional system in Ireland ...’ ‘... local forests are too small and the tree species are not suitable to CCF...’ • Resistance from forest owners: ‘... forest owners desire to generate revenue through clearfell...’ ‘... private forest owners want a ‘fast’ return but CCF has a ‘stigma’ of long term...’ Constraints of CCF all respondents Constraint Forester's knowledge Wind/stability Market conditions Owners perspective Soil type Mammal densities Other Regulations and laws 1st 26 26 12 11 9 8 6 5 2nd 14 12 7 7 22 7 2 1 Can they be overcome? -Education -Training -Research -Increasing awareness 3rd 16 13 13 9 13 8 4 11 Rank 4th 5th 7 6 6 8 11 12 18 13 8 8 16 11 1 1 7 6 6th 5 3 7 6 14 13 1 17 7th 1 6 12 7 2 12 4 18 8th 1 7 12 8 2 12 4 19 Drivers of CCF - all respondents Driver Rank 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th Certification 27 15 15 8 11 6 0 Economics 21 12 5 8 14 18 5 Scenic and landscape values 14 18 21 12 9 6 1 Public opposition to clearfell 13 19 14 13 12 6 4 Need for increased biodiversity 12 14 13 18 12 14 0 Recreation 4 14 14 16 13 16 4 Other 4 1 0 1 0 0 16 Attitudes to CCF Statement ‘Clearcutting makes more money than CCF in Ireland’ Disagree Don’t know Agree (%) (%) (%) 5 40 54 41 18 42 ‘Policy makers in Ireland should encourage the use of CCF more’ 11 14 75 ‘Broadleaved forests are better suited to the application of CCF than coniferous forests’ 42 8 50 ‘The high risk of windthrow in Ireland drives us to use clearcutting’ 28 3 69 ‘I have the expertise to practice CCF with confidence’ Conclusions • CCF users over-represented • CCF = new concept in Ireland – It can take time for a new concept to be accepted and practiced • Training and research – Understanding the concept -> avoid confusion in terminology – Feasibility studies -> possible markets, transport and processing • Promoting and awareness raising – Home-grown and high-grade construction timber – Making forest owners aware of CCF => Forest owners determine management objectives • ‘... CCF can be extremely difficult but also logical and natural ...’ Funding: COFORD - Council for Forest Research and Development Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine under the National Development Plan, Ireland